Satya Parkash Goyal, J. - (1.) The petitioner filed this petition for ejectment of the respondents from the premises in dispute on a number of grounds including the one that the respondents have pulled down the roof of one of the rooms and thereby impaired its value and utility. Both the authorities below have recorded a con -current finding that the roof of one of the rooms had been pulled down and as the same had been reconstructed by the tenants its value and utility was in no way impaired. The other pleas raised by the petitioner were also negatived and her petition dismissed by the Rent Controller. On appeal, its order was affirmed by the appellate authority vide judgment dated September 15, 1980. Hence this revision petition by the land -lady.
(2.) Mr. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the petition has contended that even on the findings recorded by the Courts below the respondents were liable to be ejected because once the roof had been pulled down, the building had become unfit for human habitation. He has further contended that the tenants were not entitled to replace the roof and by replacing it they had brought about a material change and thereby impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute. In support of his contention he relied on a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Balbir Singh v/s. Hari Ram : A.I.R. 1983 P&H. 132, wherein it was ruled : - - The language of Sec. 12 is explicit and makes it manifest that it is the landlord, who has to carry out the repairs of the tenanted premises. It is for this reason that this provision has been made that if he fails to do it, then the tenant can have a recourse to this section. There is a built in prohibition in this provision restraining the tenant to carry out the repairs himself at his volition. In this way, by carrying out of all the major, minor, necessary or urgent repairs of the premises, the tenant cannot defeat the right of the landlord to evict him on the ground under Sec. 13(3)(c). If such a situation had come to exist at any time. Once a right accrues to the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant on account of safety or unfitness of the premises for human habitation, it will remain alive. On the findings recorded by the authorities below, the present case is squarely covered by the rule laid down by the Division Bench in Balbir Singh's case (supra). However, the learned counsel for the respondents sought to challenge the finding of the courts below that either the roof had fallen or pulled down and replaced by the respondents. The challenge has no merit. There is ample evidence on the record consisting of the photographs, the statements of the photographer, head constable and other witnesses who deposed that the roof of the back portion of the premises in dispute had been pulled down by the respondents and that a girder had been put up to construct a new roof when the photographs were taken and the Police reached the spot. The concurrent findings of the Courts below that the respondents had pulled down the roof of the back room of the premises in dispute is therefore, unassailable.
(3.) It was then contended that the previous roof consisted of wooden rafters and by its replacement the tenants have enhanced the utility and value of the property in dispute rather than deteriorating it. So it was urged that the decision in Balbir Singh's case (supra) would be distinguishable and has no bearing on the present case. The argument is wholly misconceived. The moment the roof of the backroom had been pulled down, a right accrued to the landlord to eject the tenants and by its replacement, they could not take away that right as held by the Division Bench in Balbir Singh's case (supra).;